TINNITUS

J.P. NORMAN · 2026 · Case ID: A26040825

DENIED

Summary

The veteran, who served from October 2000 to October 2005, appeals the denial of service connection for tinnitus and anxiety. The Board reviewed the evidence of record at the time of the agency of original jurisdiction (AOJ) decisions, noting that any subsequently submitted evidence would require a Supplemental Claim. For tinnitus, the AOJ conceded a current diagnosis and an in-service noise exposure. However, a November 2024 VA examination concluded it was less likely than not that the tinnitus was related to in-service noise exposure, citing no reports of tinnitus during service and significant intervening time. The examiner was found competent and credible, and this opinion was assigned high probative value. The Board also considered toxic exposure risk activity, with a February 2025 VA examination concluding it was less likely than not that tinnitus resulted from this exposure, due to a lack of supporting medical evidence. The Board found the evidence persuasively weighed against a nexus for tinnitus, and therefore the benefit of the doubt doctrine was not applied. The claim for tinnitus was denied. For anxiety, the veteran asserted a link to toxic exposure and general active duty. The Board noted that anxiety is not related to toxic exposure risk activity per 38 U.S.C. 1168. A bare assertion of anxiety related to active duty without specificity or supporting service treatment records was deemed insufficient to establish in-service incurrence or warrant a VA examination. The evidence persuasively weighed against service connection for anxiety, and the benefit of the doubt doctrine was not applied. The appeal for anxiety was denied.

Rationale

No in-service reports of tinnitus; Significant intervening time between service and current report; VA examiner concluded less likely than not related to service/toxic exposure

Special Benefit

NO SPECIAL BENEFIT

Docket No.

250305-524771

Full Decision Text

Citation Nr: A26040825
Decision Date: 04/30/26 Archive Date: 04/30/26

DOCKET NO. 250305-524771
DATE: April 30, 2026

ORDER

Entitlement to service connection for tinnitus is denied.

Entitlement to service connection for anxiety is denied.

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. The evidence of record persuasively weighs against finding that tinnitus began during active service or is otherwise related to an in-service injury or disease.

2. The evidence of record persuasively weighs against finding that anxiety began during active service or is otherwise related to an in-service injury or disease.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

1. The criteria for service connection for tinnitus are not met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303.

2. The criteria for service connection for anxiety are not met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303.

REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS

The Veteran had active service from October 2000 to October 2005.

In the March 2025 VA Form 10182, Decision Review Request: Board Appeal (Notice of Disagreement), the Veteran elected the Direct Review docket.

Therefore, the Board may only consider the evidence of record at the time of the February 2025 agency of original jurisdiction (AOJ) decision on appeal as to the issue of service connection for tinnitus and the January 2025 AOJ decision on appeal for the issue of service connection for anxiety. 38 C.F.R. § 20.301. Any evidence submitted after the AOJ decision on appeal cannot be considered by the Board. 38 C.F.R. §§ 20.300, 20.301, 20.801.

If the Veteran would like VA to consider any evidence that was submitted that the Board could not consider, the Veteran may file a Supplemental Claim (VA Form 20-0995) and submit or identify this evidence. 38 C.F.R. § 3.2501. If the evidence is new and relevant, VA will issue another decision on the claims, considering the new evidence in addition to the evidence previously considered. Id. Specific instructions for filing a Supplemental Claim are included with this decision.

Service Connection

Service connection may be granted for a disability resulting from personal injury suffered or disease contracted, or for aggravation of a preexisting injury suffered or disease contracted, in the line of duty in active military, naval, or air service. 38 U.S.C. § 1110; 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(a).

To establish service connection the following elements must be satisfied: (1) the existence of a current disability; (2) in-service incurrence or aggravation of a disease or injury; and (3) a causal relationship between the current disability and the disease or injury incurred or aggravated during service (the medical "nexus" requirement). Holton v. Shinseki, 557 F.3d 1363, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2009); 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(a).

1. Entitlement to service connection for tinnitus is denied.

The Veteran asserts entitlement to service connection for tinnitus. The Board finds that as a nexus has not been established between the Veteran's current diagnosis of tinnitus and in-service incurrence, service connection is not warranted for the condition.

As to the first element of service connection, the AOJ has made a favorable finding that the Veteran has a current disability of tinnitus, and that element is conceded here.

As to the second element of service connection, the AOJ has similarly made a favorable finding that the Veteran had an in-service incurrence of exposure to hazardous noise, and that element is also conceded.

There still must be found a nexus, or link, between the current disability and the in-service incurrence. There is one medical opinion in the evidence of record concerning a nexus between the Veteran's tinnitus and in-service noise exposure.

The Veteran attended a VA examination in November 2024. The examiner concluded that it was less likely than not that the Veteran's tinnitus was the result on in-service noise exposure. The rationale offered to support this conclusion was that there were no reports of tinnitus symptoms during service. Additionally, considering the significant intervening period between service and the current report of tinnitus, a nexus could not be established. The examiner is found to be competent and credible to offer such an opinion, and it is assigned high probative value
nexus, or link, between the current disability and the in-service incurrence. There is one medical opinion in the evidence of record concerning a nexus between the Veteran's tinnitus and in-service noise exposure.

In weighing the evidence of record concerning a nexus between the Veteran's tinnitus and in-service noise exposure, the highly probative VA examination did not endorse a nexus. With no other evidence to counter this conclusion, the evidence of record persuasively weighs against a finding that there is a nexus. Without a finding of a nexus, a claim for service connection cannot be supported.

Alternatively, the AOJ has made a favorable finding that the Veteran had an in-service incurrence of toxic exposure risk activity. There is one opinion in the evidence of record which addresses whether there is a nexus between the Veteran's tinnitus and toxic exposure risk activity.

The Veteran was afforded a VA examination in February 2025. The examiner concluded that it was less likely than not that the Veteran's tinnitus was the result on in-service toxic exposure risk activity. The rationale offered to support this conclusion was that there was no supporting medical evidence that the type of exposures the Veteran experienced caused the condition at issue. The examiner is found to be competent and credible to offer such an opinion, and it is assigned high probative value.

In weighing the evidence of record concerning a nexus between the Veteran's tinnitus and in-service toxic exposure risk activity, the highly probative VA examination did not endorse a nexus. With no other evidence to counter this conclusion, the evidence of record persuasively weighs against a finding that there is a nexus. Without a finding of a nexus, a claim for service connection cannot be supported.

Certain chronic diseases, including tinnitus, which are manifested to a compensable degree within one year of discharge from active duty, shall be presumed to have been incurred or aggravated in service, even though there is no evidence of such diseases during the period of service. See 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.307(a)(3), 3.309. Alternatively, if a chronic disease listed is not noted during service or the presumptive period, then a showing of continuity of symptomatology after service is required for service connection. 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(b); Walker v. Shinseki, 708 F.3d 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2013).

No evidence of record reports a diagnosis of tinnitus within the applicable presumptive period. Additionally, the evidence is unpersuasive to establish that tinnitus symptoms have been present since the service period. As continuity of symptomatology has not been established and the record lacks evidence of a competent diagnosis of tinnitus within a year of service, entitlement to service connection is not warranted on a presumptive basis either.

For the above reasons, the Board finds that the evidence is neither evenly balanced nor approximately so with regard to whether entitlement to service connection for tinnitus is warranted. Rather, the evidence persuasively weighs against entitlement to service connection. The benefit of the doubt doctrine, see 38 U.S.C. § 5107(b), is therefore not for application. Lynch v. McDonough, 21 F.4th 776 (Fed. Cir. 2021) (en banc) (only when the evidence persuasively favors one side or another is the benefit of the doubt doctrine not for application). The appeal is hereby DENIED.

2. Entitlement to service connection for anxiety is denied.

The Veteran asserts entitlement to service connection for anxiety. The Board finds that as the evidence of record persuasively weighs against a finding that there is an in-service incurrence of an onset of the condition or event etiologically linked to the condition, service connection is not warranted for the condition. Similarly, without competent evidence of an in-service onset or incurrence of anxiety, it was not a pre-decisional duty to assist error to not provide an examination for the condition.

As previously noted, in order to be entitled to service connection there must be a finding of an in-service incurrence or onset of the condition. In the instant case the Veteran's submission for an in-service incurrence that is the cause of his anxiety was listed as toxic exposure and alternatively, "anxiety from service on active duty."

the evidence of record persuasively weighs against a finding that there is an in-service incurrence of an onset of the condition or event etiologically linked to the condition, service connection is not warranted for the condition. Similarly, without competent evidence of an in-service onset or incurrence of anxiety, it was not a pre-decisional duty to assist error to not provide an examination for the condition.

Preliminarily, anxiety is a condition which it has been determined does not have a relationship with toxic exposure risk activity. See 38 U.S.C. 1168. Accordingly, the Veteran's conceded toxic exposure risk activity will not serve as an in-service incurrence for the condition of anxiety.

The Board does not find that a bare assertion of anxiety relating to active duty to be sufficient to establish an in-service incurrence for the purposes of service connection. The statement does not provide any specificity to evaluate the nature of the Veteran's condition. A review of the Veteran's service treatment records does not show any treatment, symptoms, or diagnosis for anxiety during service.

In McLendon v. Nicholson, 20 Vet. App. 79, 84-86 (2006) the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (Court) stated that there were four elements to consider when determining if a medical examination is necessary. The Court held that VA must provide an examination where there is: (1) competent evidence of a current disability or persistent or recurrent symptoms of a disability; (2) evidence establishing that an event, injury, or disease occurred in service or establishing certain diseases manifesting during an applicable presumptive period for which the claimant qualifies; (3) an indication that the disability or persistent or recurrent symptoms of a disability may be associated with the veteran's service or with another service-connected disability, but (4) insufficient competent medical evidence on file for the Secretary to make a decision on the claim.

Here, again the Board finds the evidence of record insufficient and unpersuasive to establish an in-service incurrence related to anxiety. Without further detailed information about a related incident or onset, the standard to provide an examination to evaluate service connection for the condition is not warranted.

The Veteran is advised that he may file a Supplemental Claim that provides more detail concerning his condition and in-service incurrence and the claim may be reevaluated.

For the above reasons, the Board finds that the evidence is neither evenly balanced nor approximately so with regard to whether entitlement to service connection for anxiety is warranted. Rather, the evidence persuasively weighs against entitlement to service connection. The benefit of the doubt doctrine, see 38 U.S.C. § 5107(b), is therefore not for application. Lynch v. McDonough, 21 F.4th 776 (Fed. Cir. 2021) (en banc) (only when the evidence persuasively favors one side or another is the benefit of the doubt doctrine not for application). The appeal is hereby DENIED.

(This space intentionally left blank. VLJ signature on next page.)

J.P. Norman

Veterans Law Judge

Board of Veterans' Appeals

Attorney for the Board Arner, Jonathan T.

The Board's decision in this case is binding only with respect to the instant matter decided. This decision is not precedential and does not establish VA policies or interpretations of general applicability. 38 C.F.R. § 20.1303.

Analyze in VA Law Explorer